Posted by
Diocuore on Friday, October 30, 2009 10:22:56 AM
''Let's face it: If Michelle and Barack Obama can't even get their stories straight about the marital status of his parents, why should we simply accept that they were his parents? Why should we accept the official story of where he was born? Why should we accept that he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president as a natural born citizen? Why isn't everyone, including those who like Barack Obama, demanding that he address this question head-on and lay out the proof for the American people?''
In another month or so, millions will be reading the Nativity story – the one so well-chronicled by gospel-writer Luke.
It's amazing to me that the details of a birth that took place nearly 2,000 years ago are so precise – complete with genealogical records dating back eons.
Yet, today, even the most basic birth information about the man occupying arguably the most powerful office in the world is murky – and ever-changing.
Nevertheless, if you dare to ask questions about Barack Obama's birth, even questions about facts required to establish his constitutional eligibility for office, you will be pilloried, ridiculed, written off as a wacko, characterized as a "fringe" extremist, even labeled a "racist."
What raises this issue for me, again, is the fact that even Barack and Michelle Obama are telling two entirely contradictory stories about his birth – and even this raises no questions in the minds of uniformly unquestioning media types.
In case you missed it, Michelle Obama stated at a public event last year during the campaign that Barack Obama's mother was unmarried when she gave birth.
Now, I don't really care, except for the fact that Barack Obama has told a different story – in his autobiography and elsewhere.
Is it important in and of itself? No.
But what's important to note is that there is no documentation
to ascertain the facts.
And that's what the so-called "birther" issue is all about. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114410